rpg-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't address permission requirements, whether the creation is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that creates persistent game entities.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that already indicates the core function, though this conciseness comes at the expense of providing necessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters (7 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'worldId', 'aggression', 'startingResources', or other parameters mean or how they affect nation creation, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new nation in the world'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_world' or 'create_character', but the specificity of 'nation' provides reasonable differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_world' or 'create_character', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing world. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.